2015 QCCQ 10141, 2015 QCCQ 10141

Protection de la jeunesse — 151480 2015 QCCQ 10141 JA0940 QUEBEC COURT Youth Division Canada PROVINCE OF QUÉBEC DISTRICT OF [...] N° : 525-41-028059-145 DATE : May 29, 2015 ______________________________________________________________________ PRESIDING JUDGE : THE HONOURABLE MARIE ARCHAMBAULT, J.C.Q. ______________________________________________________________________ In the matter of: X born on [...] THE DIRECTOR OF YOUTH PROTECTION Applicant and A , mother B , father Respondents ______________________________________________________________________ JUDGMENT (Section 95 of the Youth Protection Act ) ______________________________________________________________________ WARNING: The Youth Protection Act forbids the publishing or broadcasting of information allowing for a child or the child’s parents to be identified.

Any person who contravenes this provision commits an offence and is liable to a fine (sections 11.2, 11.2.1 and 135 Y.P.A.). [ 1 ] As required under

Section 90 of the Youth Protection Act, the present judgment confirms in writing the decision rendered orally at the hearing held on May 29 th , 2015. [ 2 ] The Director of Youth Protection (the Director) seizes Court of a motion for revision and extension of a decision rendered on May 1 st , 2014, by Honourable judge Guy Lecompte. The Director is asking that the child be entrusted to her parents and that aid, counsel and assistance, along with other measures, be provided for a period of six months. [ 3 ] The mother admits all the facts pertaining to her alleged in support of the motion.

She is in agreement with the recommendations made by the Director. [ 4 ] The father admits all the facts alleged in support of the motion except the allegation pertaining to the psychiatrist that he is no longer seeing. The father testifies to the effect that he no longer needs a follow-up from a psychiatrist. [ 5 ] The father agrees with the recommendations sought by the Director but he would like that the case be transferred back to Centre jeunesse A .

He claims that the communication between the two centres jeunesse is difficult, involving too many people, causing delays, in addition to the workers not necessarily being bilingual. [ 6 ] After hearing the evidence and reading the documentary evidence, the attorney for the child states being in agreement with the

recommendations of the Director. CONTEXT [ 7 ] The situation of the parents has evolved positively. The communication between the two remains at times difficult but both parents are open to a mediation process that has already started. [ 8 ] The mother resided at [centre A] where she did benefit from the mother-child program. Upon her release from [centre A], the mother has agreed to follow the [centre A] after care program and lives with the child in a semi-supervised apartment where she intends to stay until September 2015.

She attends Narcotics Anonymous meetings regularly, two to three times per week. [ 9 ] With Emploi Québec , the mother also started a work training program. [ 10 ] The situation of the father has also evolved positively. He now holds a job and is expecting a second child.

He meets regularly with the worker from Centre jeunesse A and attends Narcotic Anonymous meetings on a regular basis. [ 11 ] The child is doing well while spending alternating weeks with her parents and the daycare each one has chosen. [ 12 ] Despite the positive evolution of each parent individually, their relationship remains estranged and at times hostile. Both parents recognize the necessity for the continued involvement of the Director. [ 13 ] The Court does not have jurisdiction to address the request made by the father for the case to be transferred back to Centre jeunesse A .

The Court can, on the other hand, recommend to the two establishments involved to try and ease their own communication. The situation of the parents is already complex in that they share custody, do not use the same daycare, live in different districts and have communication problems. One can understand the frustration expressed by the father with the added difficulties of dealing with two centres jeunesse, themselves facing a language barrier. [ 14 ] The Director has established the need for continued Youth Protection intervention and the recommendations meet the needs and the best interest of the child.

AS A CONSEQUENCE AND FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT: [ 15 ] DECLARES that the security and the development of the child are still compromised; AND, BY VIRTUE OF AND PURSUANT TO THE POWERS GRANTED UNDER SECTIONS 91 AND 91.1 OF THE YOUTH PROTECTION ACT, THE COURT ORDERS THE FOLLOWING MEASURES: [ 16 ] ENTRUSTS the child to her parents; [ 17 ] TAKES JUDICIAL NOTICE that the child is spending alternating weeks with each parent; [ 18 ] STRONGLY RECOMMENDS to both parents to seek support and address their own issues; [ 19 ] ORDERS the parents to collaborate with the Director of Youth Protection; [ 20 ] ORDERS that aid, counsel and assistance be provided to the child and her family for a period of six (6) months; [ 21 ] ENTRUSTS the situation of the child to the Director of Youth Protection A , who shall then see that the measures are carried out. _________________________________ MARIE ARCHAMBAULT, J.C.Q.

Me Sym Davis Attorney for the Director of Youth Protection Me Karine Doherty Attorney for the child

Me Guy Luc Grondin Attorney for the mother Date of hearing : May 29 th , 2015